Sautee the garlic on low-medium heat until translucent (don’t scorche the shitte!).

Throw in the shrimp, and turn the heat up to medium-high.

Add fresh ground black peppa, sautee until just cooked, and then remove the shrimp with a slotted spoon and set aside.

Deglaze with the generous splashe of corenwijn, and then adde the white wine, clam juice, and sage, turn heat to high, and allow to reduce on high while you boil the fusilli (for twelve minutes).

With one minute left on the pasta, turn the heat to low-medium and throw the shrimp back in.

Drain the pasta (don’t fucken rinse it, asshole!), put it in the pot with the shrimp and shitte, turn the heat to high, and stir while the liquid reduces/incorporates into the pasta, for about two minutes.

DONE!

Maybe you thinke itte’s blasphemous to put cheese on seafood, but this shitte really benefittes from a little freshly grated parmigiano reggiano, so fucke you.

January 28, 2011

January 28, 2011

Tenured Radical published a guest poste today from some Austrobelgian dipshitte named Katrina Gulliver at Ludwig Maximillian University, whatever the fucke thatte is. While the poste is a well-written exploration of the roles of bloggeing in academia, it also contains a bunch of snide passive-aggressive attacks on pseudonymous bloggeing.

This fucken drivel includes the following gems:

I don’t think online pseudonymity is inherently wrong or cowardly – it can serve a purpose, of which I have availed myself occasionally.

The persistence of pseudonymity in some cases seems more like an egotistical pose: much like someone who is in no danger hiring a bodyguard. And it only serves to perpetuate the (irrational) fears in academia about the dangers of the newfangled interwebs.

Yes, operating under my own name perhaps puts the brakes on some of the things I might say, but it also means I am operating without a net, without the retreat path of deleting a pseudonymous blog, with plausible deniability.

What a load of dumfucked bullshitte.

First, there are very good reasons for people to adopt a pseudonym beyond “in some cases seem[ing] more like an egotistical pose”. Is this author aware of the actual fucken death threats that some bloggers have received and the disgusting violent verbal sexual attacks many bloggers receive on a daily basis? Is this author aware that the vast majority of bloggers who report this shitte are women? Who’s “posing egotistically” when the first sentence of a blogge poste points out that the blogger “is a historian based at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich”?

Second, if anything, it is the *eponymous* bloggers who are “cowardly” and refuse to operate “without a net”, hiding behind the cloak of their real world credentials instead of allowing their writing to stand on its own and risking finding out that their blogge suckes asse and no one wants to read itte.

Third, as far as the “retreat path of deleting a pseudonymous blog, with plausible deniability”, more fucken bullshitte. There are numerous pseudonymous bloggers who have been blogging for fucken *years*, and have established a reserve of credibility and expertise with an extensive audience based solely on the reliability and excellence of their writing. Deletion of one of these blogges is done with no more or less plausible deniability than that of an eponymous blogge. And, anyway, is this author aware that *nothing* on the Internet can really be deleted and that there are publicly accessible archives of pretty much everything?

Finally, what could possibly be the fucken *point* of bashing pseudonymous bloggers like this, other than to attempt to deny them credibility and silence their voices? Is it a cowardly fear that someone might build a large audience that treats them as a voice of credibility without having to wave around degrees, CVs, and institutional affiliations like a fucken bludgeon? Is it the cowardly fear that in a competition for audience that includes pseudonymous bloggers, degrees, CVs, and institutional affiliations might not be worth jacke shitte?